Persona Management Software

This morning I followed a twisty path from my Facebook newsfeed to this blog post to, finally, this blog post.What magnetic force pulled me forward up this ladder of links, you ask? A concept that both my social science side and my science fiction side found fascinating (and not all that surprising, really): the government/political organizations/interest groups are developing/have developed/have implemented new software that creates a fictional persona with an online presence that is indistinguishable from a real person. Ok, so far, other than from a more metaphysical or philosophical standpoint, this doesn't sound that threatening. But, as Happy Rockefeller writes in his Daily Kos blog, the nefarious purpose of such fictional online personae is to manufacture opinions, Facebook statuses, tweets, and online commentary in an effort to influence public attitudes.

With persona management software, an employee can control multiple automated personae, building each virtual person from false accounts on a plethora of interconnect social networking sites. False accounts, that is, in the sense that these people do not exist outside of the internet. Instead, they exist on thumb drives or on servers, made up of a series of RSS feeds, retweeted tweets, and made-up social networking profiles. Much of this has come out in leaked emails taken from a defense contracting firm, HB Gary, by the hacker group Anonymous. Rockefeller quotes from the email, and I'll repost it here:

Using the assigned social media accounts we can automate the posting of content that is relevant to the persona.  In this case there are specific social media strategy website RSS feeds we can subscribe to and then repost content on twitter with the appropriate hashtags.  In fact using hashtags and gaming some location based check-in services we can make it appear as if a persona was actually at a conference and introduce himself/herself to key individuals as part of the exercise, as one example.  There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to all fictitious personas.

Both bloggers linked above point out that the purpose of these false personae is to plant fake opinions out there in cyberspace. These fictitious personae can post comments on blogs, retweet opinions for or against controversial topics, or bring up arguments or counterarguments no yet in the public consciousness. An attitude, opinion, or stance that may have only a small following in "real" life can seem overwhelmingly large when fake people are loudly supporting it.

But what does this creation of false virtual personae really mean, beyond the ability to flood the market (so to speak) with opinions that are not necessarily held by that many people in the "real" world. First, cyberspace is already a skewed space. I don't know if anyone can argue that the opinions we see on Facebook, Twitter, etc., is representative of the population. For now, I'm thinking of the smaller world of US politics, but this could certainly be widened to include other parts of the world. There is a certain type of person that gets online and posts, and not just in terms of money (you have to have at least some money to own a computer and have internet access...although that is debated in terms of facebook and tweeting, given the more wide availability of cellphones, etc.). Not everyone who has a cell phone or a computer posts their political opinions online. And we should already be aware (although I think some people forget this) that just because a group has a loud presence online doesn't mean it is actually powerful, cohesive, or large. People who are talking about politics online are already a self-selected group.

I wonder, too, what these false personae represent on a more philosophical level? Perhaps my literary friends who are well versed in the tropes of science fiction in general and cyberpunk in particular can address this question better than I.

Finally, this begs the question if shooting "false" opinions out into cyberspace really changes "real" people's opinions. I think this has something to do, first, with new research that shows that given the fragmentation of news media in the digital age, consumers seek out media outlets that are closest to their own political ideology. That is, lefties tend to watch John Stewart, conservatives are more likely to watch Glenn Beck. Your political leanings tend to determine which media you are exposed to. So does this argument extend to virtual personae? Would opinions expressed by false accounts only reach those who already share that opinion? Is this like preaching to the choir? A mechanism of reinforcement rather than change?

Second, the theory that these false personae can change people's opinions depends on the theory that people are easily lead. Josh Clark, in his How Stuff Works blog, explains:

...[U]nder the bandwagon technique a tweet that shows support for union labor is trumped by 50 replies that suggest unions are bad for America. We like to be on the winning team, generally, so we may be swayed by the 50:1 ratio against the concept of unions, which germinates into personal opinion, which may be disseminated in to others throughout one’s lifetime. All this without any real information.

I understand the logic here, but I'm not sure if I agree that public opinion works this way. Which I guess is a bit funny, coming from me, since I'm writing about how news media coverage of crime in Latin America influences public opinion. But the more research I do on the topic, the more it seems that people's opinions can be sharpened or a topic can be made more salient, but it is very hard to actually change someone's opinion. And I am very skeptical of the idea that the weight of numbers is all it takes.

This is not to say that I think that the use of persona management programs is benign. I'd like to see some research on this "bandwagoning" of opinion. I'll have to do a bit more digging on the subject (I'll report back if I find anything). Is this really how things work?

But even if this isn't how you change people's opinions, it is still nothing to sneeze at to be able to more firmly confirm already held opinions. These false personae could easily help to cement already held views once people see evidence that more people think like them. Again, reinforcement rather than change.

Dark Tourism

I just read an article off of someone's facebook page about "dark tourism" in Mexico (if you click the link, it's in Spanish...all you English speakers are forewarned). I had never heard of such a thing (well, ok, I had, but not by that name). It evokes such an interesting image, this idea of dark, or morbid, tourism. The article talks about "narco" culture, tourists visiting the sites of famous massacres or going into the northern border towns to look for a little peek at something dangerous. On top of this macabre search for the sensationalized, glorified trappings of the drug cartels, tourists are also looking to experience the darker side of poverty and oppression. The article describes organized groups heading to Chiapas to visit the poor indigenous regions famous for the Zapatista uprising and a tour in an ecological park in central Mexico that simulates the experiences of illegal immigrants crossing the desert to get into the US.

On the one hand, you have people looking for adventure, something dangerous, a glimpse of a life that they can only see in the movies, a way to satiate their morbid curiosity. On the other hand, you have people who are traveling to educate themselves (or at least they are trying to convince themselves of this), people who want to see first hand how the world really works, how those less fortunate suffer. It is perhaps a way that some feel they can show compassion for their fellow humans. But I am not convinced that this type of tourism is any different than the first kind, no less motivated by morbid curiosity, no less voyeuristic. I have a hard time wrapping my head around foreign tourists paying for the privilege to suffer dehydration and exhaustion in the desert and humiliation at the hands of fake border patrol officers in an attempt to understand what it is like to be an illegal immigrant. Is this really how we can find compassion? It reminds me somewhat of the slum tours offered in places like Rio de Janeiro or Mumbai. Tourists, often very well-meaning tourists, want to get a real life glimpse of the infamous shanty towns, perhaps in an attempt to put a human face on poverty. But can we really understand life in a favela by going on a tour? Are we not, by the very act of observing, of "touring," changing the slum? I have great respect for those who commit their lives to working with people living in slums and shanty towns, but I have no desire to go on a tour there. It feels too much like voyeurism.

Of course, dark tourism is not a new phenomenon. Think back, for example, to the wagons full of spectators at the battle of Bull Run during the US Civil War.  And the category of dark tourism should not be limited to witnessing dark acts as they are happening. We can also include visiting areas that have suffered war or tragedy long after the actual events occurred. We could include here Revolutionary War reenactment, visiting Ground Zero in New York City, making pilgrimages to Civil War battlegrounds, or walking the grounds of Auschwitz. This is not to say that there are not other reasons to visit these sites (if you'll forgive the double negative). I do not want to discount those who visit such places as an act of respect for the dead. But there is still this fascination with the gruesome, the awful, the brutal, acts of war and crime and mass murder, that pulls us in, a motivation that lies beyond the idea that we should witness depravity in order to prevent it in the future. Please do not think that I am advocating here that we forget the victims of the Holocaust or of the 9/11 attacks or of any civil war. There is truth to the cliche that when we forget the past we are doomed to repeat it. But I think it is important to question the motives behind any kind of dark tourism, to be aware of the aspects of sensationalism and spectacle embedded in it.

You should google "dark tourism" and see what comes up. One site promotes a Charlie Manson tour of LA (visiting the places his "family" committed those infamous murders). You can visit the "killing fields" in Cambodia or tour the war-torn cities in Bosnia. One article divides dark tourism into five subcategories: grief tourism, disaster tourism, suicide tourism, poverty tourism, and doomsday tourism. It's a fascinating topic (perhaps morbidly fascinating?).